[Buddha-l] Hiroshima vs Terrorism..........?

[Stanley J. Ziobro II]

On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, Richard P. Hayes wrote:

> On Sat, 2005-10-08 at 12:27 -0400, Stanley J. Ziobro II wrote:
>
> > If I can find a certain URL I'll send it along.  The author of a highly
> > informative article thereon analyzes hitherto top secret WWII U.S.
> > military and politcal documents relative to the planned invasion of Japan.
>
> While you're looking for that URL, see if you can find an on-line
> version of an article written some twenty years ago that chronicles the
> evolution of American thought on how many lives the bombing of Hiroshima
> and Nagasaki saved. What is interesting is that it climbs in direct
> proportion to the number of deaths directly attributed to the atomic
> bombs. In 1945 it was thought that the atomic bombs had saved perhaps
> 10,000 lives, but by 1955 the bombs had saved millions of lives. It
> would not be too difficult to conclude that the number of lives saved
> was more a reflection of feelings of guilt than on historical realities,
> although the claim was always made that recently released top secret
> documents were showing that the strength of the Japanese army, and the
> fanaticism of their resolve to fight to the last infant had been
> drastically underestimated.

I think you're shooting from the hip here, Richard.  If such an article
exists, and if therein the claim was made that 10,000 lives were saved by
dropping the atomic bombs, the claim is simply silly.  U.S. military
estimates for Allied deaths alone in the proposed invasion of Japan
exceeded 500,000.

> Another major factor, of course, was the massive paranoia being
> generated during the McCarthy era. The more people gave in to mass
> hysteria about the Soviet threat, the more lives the atomic bombs were
> credited with saving.

Maybe.  You would know.  I've wasn't born then.

> > In terms of statistics it is difficult to deny that dropping the bombs saved lives.
>
> It may be difficult for you to deny something you desperately want to
> believe. But the lives allegedly saved are all hypothetical and
> speculative. The lives lost were real, as were the horrible illnesses
> and psychological traumas experienced by the survivors of the attack. To
> believe that the suffering caused by the bombs was in any way
> justifiable is to wallow in a delusion. To the extent that that delusion
> becomes a basis for justifying other wars, it is a dangerous one.

You have a penchant for discerning my state of mind.  How do you do it?
Can you spell p r o j e c t i o n?  More to the point, Without denying the
question of whether the taking of civilian lives was justifiable (strictly
speaking, it wasn't), the statistical projections regarding casulties and
deaths turns out to have been extremely conservative.  But it remains the
case that by dropping the bombs the Japanese High Command chose to
surrender.  This action spared both the Allies and the Japanese millions
of lives that would otherwise have been lost.  Maybe this is something you
desperately do not want to believe, or maybe you are simply encouraging
discussion, or maybe, you're just being contrary for whatever reason.  I
really don't know.

> >   We've now got information tat it was precisely the
> > dropping of the bomb on Nagasaki that decided the Japanese high command to
> > surrender to the Allied Forces.
>
> Yes, and we also have the information that is was precisely the
> unwarranted embargo of the flow of goods to Japan by American ships that
> decided the Japanese high command to bomb Pearl Harbor. Had it not been
> for American aggression, the Americans would not have been drawn into
> the war in the Pacific, and had they not be drawn into that war, it
> would not have been necessary for Americans to save lives by the
> essentially terrorist tactic of dropping bombs on two completely non-
> military targets in which the only lives lost were civilians and
> hospitalized military personnel.

Neither Hirosshima nor Nagasaki were "completely non-military targets".

Regards,

Stan Ziobro